The dehumanisation of Jews in the European mindset, which enabled Nazi Germany to exterminate 6m people, gave the Western world cause for reflection. Even those who only engaged in polite anti-semitism, such as is still prevalent in the prejudice against homosexuals, realised what terrible consequences could follow. After the war, anti-semitism became taboo in elite circles. Jews believed that the Holocaust had taught Europe a lesson. That was a mistake, similar to the one made by those of us who believed that 9/11 would create sympathy for Israel in its struggle against jihadi terrorists. The prejudice against Jews remained.

Zionism – and its creation, Israel – gave that prejudice the excuse to breathe again. Deep down in the European consciousness, there lingers a conviction that the world would be better without the Jews. But as anti-semitism is now an unfashionable tool for achieving this goal, the way to do it is by destroying the “Zionist entity”. Last year, Rabbi Sacks made this point by quoting the Israeli author Amos Oz: “In the 30s, anti-Semites declared, ‘Jews to Palestine’. Today they shout, ‘Jews out of Palestine’. They don’t want us to be there; they don’t want us to be here; they don’t want us to be.”

The time has come for the Jewish leadership to stop behaving as though Jews were strangers in the land and act with courage to fight the antisemitism camouflaged as anti-Zionism. My Christian PA asked me what the difference was between a Jew and a Zionist. After explaining the distinction, I realised that in the eyes of the world, there was none. And just as nothing Jews do would lead to the end of anti-semitism, nothing Israel does will lead to the end of anti-Zionism, for they are both expressions of hatred of the Jews.

When British politicians are asked whether they are Zionists, they often respond by redefining the term to mean the right of Israel to exist in secure borders. Why is there this need to define the word? Because the word “Zionist” is being used by anti-Semites. They describe Israel as “the Zionist entity” and declare that Zionism – the Jewish movement for the right of self-determination in one country in the entire world – is expansionist, racist, fascist, apartheid and imperialist. Untold numbers have been persuaded that it is a movement designed to enable Jews to take over the world.

Someone who calls for a one state solution might be wrong because he/she doesn'n know enough or can't see the implementations and might even be an antisemite but to call everyone an antisemite is very wrong because you're accusing people of wanting to eleminate all jews which obviously is not the case. Calling everyone whith the slightest of critic to some of Israels deeds an antisemite is killing for the debate,maybe thats just what you want?

Ciderlout

September 18th, 20088:09 AM

To Richard: No, they are all bad. Personally I think the UN should just step in, removing religion and ethnicity from the equation - and in any other situation that seems unable to be resolved.

Richard

August 26th, 20088:08 AM

To Ciderlout.
To call for a one-state solution and attack the principle of self-determination is either ignorant or anti-semitic in the case applied to Israel. The Arabs and especially the Palestinian Arabs do not want peace with Israel, they want to destroy it. Go to MEMRI (google it) and read what is published everyday in Arab print and media and spoken in their mosques. Go to Palestinian Media Watch and do the same for the "Palestinians". If you are against states constructed purely on religious or ethnic grounds, then will you oppose Jordan, whose constitution forbids any Jew from citizenship there? Or will you condemn most Islamic countries for enshrining religious law at the heart of the state? No? If you won't for them but will for Israel, you are acting from a prejudiced position.

Ben Ullmann

August 25th, 20087:08 AM

An interesting article Sidney. I found Dr Brian Robinson's comments iteresting and helpful and I think the tone of the argument between Dan Judelson et al is perhaps a case in point concerning Brian's comment that the viciousness of some accusations seems slightly baffling without suspecting a touch of anti-semitism, Dan's comments being phrased in such an inflamatory way produced almost as strong reactions in others leading to an argument rather than discussion. Perhaps this can partly be explained by passion on both sides in these types of discussion where everyone has seen/read deeply distressing things. Another possibility is the contrast between a well armed army and poverty stricken youngsters throwing stones is what makes Israel such a villified force, I guess there are few other constant conflicts which look from a certain perspective so unfair and David vs Goliath-esque.
While I am relatively ignorant and have no solutions what concerns me is why does this contrast remain, why doesn't Palestine seem to improve? Surely that is not all Israel's fault? If Palestine's government and its oil-rich Arab neighbours were to spend more time and money improving Palestinian infra-structure and the quality of life of Palestinians then surely that would be of more value to Palestinians right now than sorting out Israeli/Palestinian relationships? Improved living conditions, education, infra-structure in Palestine I believe would produce happier, more moderate and less radicalised Palestinians and then from that base perhaps negotiations with Israel might proceed much more smoothly and also reduce the "big vs little" image.
I think my writing is probably very confused here, please excuse this, but essentially what I am saying is - whenever I think about Israel/Palestine I'm always left wondering why people don't choose to focus on how to improve Palestine for Palestinians first with the intention of then returning to the question of Israel once this has been achieved.

Dan Wright

August 19th, 20084:08 PM

I wish this would recieve wide circulation in the UK: God doesn't exist. Judaism is, like Islam and Christianity, Hindusim et al a man made cult.
Will the moderators allow my "non-pc" comment to be shown?

Jack Lynes.

August 18th, 20082:08 PM

This article should receive the widest possible circulation amongst all Jews in the UK. Pulling no punches it is a timely reminder of the 'enemy within'. It gives in very simple terms the responses to those Jews who would see Israel 'put to sleep' rather than speak up for the Marvel that is Israel.
The anti-semitic Jew (for kid us not, it is they who we are fighting, has the cheek to suggest that only they seek peace)
"Peace Now"- a title that infers we do not all wish for, pray for, and will work towards a Just Peace, has his /her answer in this article.
Practical suggestion: Do we have any moles who can discover when they will next take space in the Press? We could afford an ad. which boldly suggests that they and readers take note of this article by inviting readers either to look it up on a designated website or sending for a Copy.
It could also be reprinted and distributed widely in synagogue magazines or distributed at HHDays.

Ciderlout

August 15th, 200810:08 AM

Quite interesting article from this site:
http://www.standpointmag.co.uk/elie-kedourie-august
"He was in no doubt, for example, that the idea of national self-determination, launched upon the world by Woodrow Wilson after 1918, was not only absurd, but also destructive and immoral."
This was a Jewish Scholar.
Rabbi Brichto's article was an interesting read, and certainly anti-semetism is not dissapearing as quickly as it (or any other irrational and destructive phobia) should.
But I find his defence of Israel troubling - in this day and age is it really constructive to insist that a state exist based purely on religious and ethnic grounds? At the end of World War II Europe created what became the EU to help break down the borders betweeen states: to prevent the possibility of future war. Rabbi Brichto seems to think peace will instead come from a strict maintenance of divison between Jew and Arab; people A from people B. (NB: that may only be my interpretation of his ideas; he actually seems to offer no path to peace himself in the above article)
And this I think is hugely troubling, and will be a disaster for future generations of both Israelis and their Arab neighbours/countrymen.

Lawrence

August 12th, 200811:08 AM

of course Judelson is anti-semitic. His demonisation of the IDF is a case in point, while at the same time he is so very deafening in his silence of the very real barbarity and fascist violence of Israel's numerous enemies from Hezbollah and Hamas to Syria and others in the Middle-East. Such blatant double standards can only be accounted for by anti-semitism.

szeni

August 8th, 20082:08 PM

Why is it important whether Judelson is or isn't anti-Semitic? Clearly, he is obsessed with Israel and busy smearing the country and its people at every opportunity. In the Middle Ages Jews were accused of ritual killings of children ; according to Judelson, the IDF is a bunch of child murderers. He doesn't understand the basics of the Law of Return or even the difference between Jews and Israelis. Try and read a decent text-book on Israeli history, Mr Judelson, and most of what you want 'explained' would become clear.

Dan Judelson

August 7th, 20087:08 PM

Szeni and now Sidney have attributed to me references I am not making. For the record, the Nazi behaviour i was referring to was when Israeli police busted an ring of self avowed Israeli Nazis in Petah Tikvah earlier this year. there was quite a fuss about it, with MKs demanding changes to the Law of Return. The story is here: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3448276,00.html
Debate is great. It happens when issues are dealt with, instead of erroneous accusations.